Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obama. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obama. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, December 20, 2018


 Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

Caroline Glick is famous for viewing developments with alarm. But this time there is no doubt that her worries are justified. 

If Jeremy Corbyn is elected British Prime Minister, it will not only be bad for the Jews of Britain, it will be very bad for Israel. While not the military and economic powerhouse it was in Queen Victoria’s day, Britain still has enormous influence in the world, including a veto in the Security Council. As Glick notes, it is Israel’s biggest European trading partner, including as a supplier of arms and components for American weapons systems. It has nuclear weapons, and the Royal Navy is still not to be sneezed at.

Corbyn has called for a boycott of Israel, accused her of war crimes, and promised to recognize a state of “Palestine” as soon as he takes office. He has laid wreaths at the graves of terrorists (and denied it) as well as expressing sympathy for Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

And Corbyn might make it. Theresa May’s government is hanging by a thread, and she has said that she will not stand for reelection in 2022, the latest possible date for elections. There are serious divisions in the Conservative Party over Brexit and other issues. Recent polling shows the parties within a percent or two. One juicy crisis could precipitate elections at any time.

Glick only discussed Corbyn. But the UK is not the only place that could experience a change in government for the worse, from an Israeli point of view.

Across the pond, the Trump Administration has so far proved itself one of the best allies of Israel in recent times. Trump, Pence, Bolton, and Pompeo are squarely in our corner. But support for Israel has become a partisan issue in recent years. While a large majority of Americans say they support Israel, only 49% of Democrats sympathize with her more than with the Palestinians. And the left wing of the Democratic Party, which is much more anti-Israel, has grown stronger lately, with several outspoken opponents of Israel elected to Congress. 

The last presidential election was very close, with Donald Trump squeaking by a lackluster opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump is currently being assailed with accusations of criminal behavior, which – even if they can’t be made to stick – make it difficult for him to expand support beyond his loyal base. It is certainly possible that he will choose not to run again in 2020, or that he will be defeated. Even if he is reelected, he will be gone after 2024. The chance that the next administration will exemplify the values of the left wing – the Obama wing – of the Democratic party is significant.

President Obama already abstained on a Security Council resolution condemning Israel. It is not a stretch to imagine a future Democratic president of like mind voting to sanction Israel for acts of self-defense, or acting against her in wartime. You may remember John Kerry’s acceptance of Hamas’ narrative of during the 2014 Gaza war, the administration’s holding up a shipment of Hellfire missiles during the war, or the unnecessary FAA ban on flights to Israel’s international airport, which some observers attribute to a quiet order from the administration.

The US and Britain are considered Israel’s allies today, although there can be friction or differences of opinion. Vladimir Putin is in a different category. Putin’s Russia is not exactly an ally, but has cooperated with Israel to an unprecedented degree. Without speculating about the reasons for Putin’s attitude, it’s well known that there are highly anti-Zionist and antisemitic circles in Russia, and her policy toward Israel would most likely be considerably worse without Putin in the driver’s seat.

But Vladimir Putin is only human, and humans can die or be overthrown. They certainly get old and tired at some point. Putin is 66, and he will not be in power forever.

All this leads me to speculate about a reasonably probable scenario within the next four years or so, in which Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister of the UK, a left-wing Democrat is President of the US, and perhaps even a more “traditional” (i.e., anti-Israel) Russian leader sits in the Kremlin. What would Israel’s situation look like?

We could expect that Corbyn would encourage economic and other boycotts of Israel, which – unlike today’s impotent BDS movement – could have damaging effects on our economy. At the same time, he would provide both concrete aid to our enemies as well as diplomatic support in the UN. In the event of war, he would call for disadvantageous cease-fires or settlements that would erase Israel’s battlefield gains. Even military intervention is imaginable, given the fanatical anti-Zionism of many of his supporters and associates.

The US administration would no longer be a reliable veto for anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council. That means that – with the support of Corbyn’s Britain – the Security Council could apply economic or even military sanctions against Israel in order to force her to make concessions to her enemies.

One would expect such an administration to follow the precedent of the Obama Administration in intervening in Israel’s domestic affairs, preventing her from building in the territories, forcing her to release terrorist prisoners, and in case of war, using its leverage as arms supplier to prevent a clear-cut Israeli victory. An unfriendly administration could leak information about Israeli plans and operations to her enemies and the media – as the US did in connection with Israeli raids against Iranian arms shipments in Syria. It could prevent Israel from carrying out preventative strikes, as Obama did in 2012 when PM Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Barak wanted to bomb the Iranian nuclear project.

Russia, from her base in Syria, could effectively choke off Israeli air operations with her advanced air defense systems that cover almost all of the area of Israel. She could spread her protective umbrella over Iranian forces in Syria. She could even intervene militarily in a war between Israel and Iran, or Iranian proxies.

This is truly a nightmare scenario, with three nations that today are at worst pragmatic players (Russia) and at best (the US) supportive allies of the Jewish state, becoming hostile to her in a short space of time. In particular, even if this scenario is only partially realized, Israel will face great difficulties if she finds herself at war. And today it is hard to imagine that the conflict between Israel and Iran – the “head of the snake” that animates her multifarious enemies – will be resolved without military conflict.

Israel’s leaders must realize that today we are living in a temporary strategic paradise, which can end at any time. If Theresa May, Donald Trump, or Vladimir Putin (or worse, all three) should be supplanted by their likely replacements, our freedom of action – diplomatic, economic, and military – would be severely circumscribed.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this. One is that we must prepare for the possibility by reducing our dependence on the US and the UK. That’s worth doing in any event.

The second is that we should act within the short time frame available to fundamentally transform our strategic situation. At the very least, that means ending the threat from Iran herself and her proxies by preemptive military action.

We’ve already wasted two years. It’s time to act.



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Monday, June 24, 2019

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich (WSJ): Take the Palestinians’ ‘No’ for an Answer (click via tweet)
This week’s U.S.-led Peace to Prosperity conference in Bahrain on the Palestinian economy will likely be attended by seven Arab states—a clear rebuke to foreign-policy experts who said that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Golan Heights as Israeli territory would alienate the Arab world. Sunni Arab states are lending legitimacy to the Trump administration’s plan, making it all the more notable that the Palestinian Authority itself refuses to participate.

The conference’s only agenda is improving the Palestinian economy. It isn’t tied to any diplomatic package, and the plan’s 40-page overview contains nothing at odds with the Palestinian’s purported diplomatic goals. Some aspects are even politically uncomfortable for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Given all that, the Palestinian Authority’s unwillingness to discuss economic opportunities for its own people, even with the Arab states, shows how far it is from discussing the concessions necessary for a diplomatic settlement. Instead it seeks to deepen Palestinian misfortune and use it as a cudgel against Israel in the theater of international opinion.

This isn’t the first time the Palestinians have said no. At a summit brokered by President Clinton in 2000, Israel offered them full statehood on territory that included roughly 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along with a capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority rejected that offer, leading Israel to up it to 97% of the West Bank in 2001. Again, the answer was no. An even further-reaching offer in 2008 was rejected out of hand. And when President Obama pressured Israel into a 10-month settlement freeze in 2009 to renew negotiations, the Palestinians refused to come to the table.

After so many rejections, one might conclude that the Palestinian Authority’s leaders simply aren’t interested in peace. Had they accepted any of the peace offers, they would have immediately received the rarest of all geopolitical prizes: a new country, with full international recognition. To be sure, in each proposal they found something not quite to their liking. But the Palestinians are perhaps the only national independence movement in the modern era that has ever rejected a genuine offer of internationally recognized statehood, even if it falls short of all the territory the movement had sought.


Palestinian Leaders To United States: We Don’t Need Your Stinking Money
The Palestinian Authority also attended a “counter-conference” in Bahrain last week, titled “The Holocaust of the Century in Bahrain… Its Signs, Consequences, and Ways to Deal With It,” bizarrely applying terminology that describes Nazis’ genocide against the Jews to an economic conference with a $50 billion proposed investment.

The boycott and calls for violence rehash the same unproductive methods the Palestinians have used in the past to thwart peace measures, only this time the incoherence of the boycott is made more evident by the fact Israel will not even attend. Palestinian leaders continue to promulgate the notion that the workshop is some devious machination of the West or President Trump or both, despite many Palestinian-Arab neighbors agreeing to attend and host.

If anything, their attendance shows the Palestinian-Arabs’ gradual isolation among the Gulf States, who have grown weary of the Palestinian Authority’s political gymnastics and obsession with destroying their Jewish neighbors. Bahrain will prove another missed opportunity for Palestinian leadership to engage with their neighbors in a significant way. Palestinian leadership sees the political capital to be had in human suffering, so any attempts to mitigate such suffering meet serious skepticism from Palestinian officials.

Since rejecting the suggested partitioning the 1937 Peel Commission, Arab leaders have thwarted the creation of an Arab state west of the Jordan River more than six times, depending on whether one considers refusal to talk to mean refusing the possibility of a state. Thus, if anything is to be gleaned from the Bahrain conference boycott, it is that the Palestinian leadership does not have a genuine interest in bettering the lives of their own people—and perhaps that they are quite unprepared for actual statehood.
Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinians and the Bahrain Conference: Condemning Arabs While Asking for Arab Money
The Palestinian strategy is clear: to incite the Arab masses against their leaders and governments. The Palestinian attacks are no longer directed against US President Donald Trump... Now the targets are the Arab heads of state, particularly those who are seen by Palestinians are being in collusion with Israel and the Trump administration.

As the Palestinians were condemning Arabs for agreeing to attend the conference in Bahrain, Palestinian leaders repeated their appeal to the Arab states for financial aid. On the one hand, the Palestinians are condemning Arab countries for attending a conference aimed at boosting the Palestinian economy and improving living conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. On the other hand, Palestinian leaders have no problem begging their Arab brothers for urgent financial aid.... The Palestinians are asking the Arabs to give them $100 million each month to help them "face political and financial pressure" from Israel and the US administration.

The Palestinians realize that some of the key Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, are no longer prepared to wait for them and have decided to board the train whose final destination is prosperity and economic opportunities for both Palestinians and Arabs.

The decision of six Arab states to attend the Bahrain conference despite the Palestinian boycott call shows that the Arabs have chosen to endorse a new direction – one that will leave the Palestinians to fend for themselves in a hell of their own making. For their choice to thumb their noses not only at the US but also at influential Arab states, the Palestinians are likely to emerge as the biggest losers.

Saturday, February 06, 2021

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: ICC investigation into Israeli 'war crimes' an immoral decision - editorial
The International Criminal Court at The Hague made a terrible decision on Friday in announcing that it had legal justification to open a war crimes investigation against Israel.

In a majority ruling published on Friday, following a six-year review by the chief prosecutor, the ICC judges said that, “The Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine... extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

Granting itself jurisdiction over the territories paves the way for the court – set up under the Rome Statute of 2002, which Israel and the US did not ratify – to investigate Israel and, if it wants, the Palestinians, for alleged war crimes. These could include past Israeli military operations like Protective Edge in 2014 against terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip as well as settlement construction in the West Bank.

As expected, Israel and the United States responded harshly to the court decision.

“Today, the International Criminal Court has proven once more that it is a political body and not a judicial institution,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday.

“This is refined antisemitism,” Netanyahu said. “This court was created to prevent horrors like the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish nation, and now it is attacking the only country of the Jewish nation.”

He added that the court “casts these delusional accusations against the only democracy in the Middle East” while refusing to “investigate the real war crimes committed by brutal dictatorships like Iran and Syria on a daily basis.”

In the US, State Department Spokesman Ned Price said the Biden administration is committed to Israel’s security, and objects to the court’s decision.

“As we made clear when the Palestinians purported to join the Rome Statute in 2015, we do not believe the Palestinians qualify as a sovereign state, and therefore are not qualified to obtain membership as a state, or participate as a state in international organizations, entities, or conferences, including the ICC,” Price said.

“The United States has always taken the position that the court’s jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it, or that are referred by the UN Security Council,” he added.


Melanie Phillips: Why can those on the left never see their own antisemitism?
In his new book Jews Don’t Count, David Baddiel observes that people on the left don’t treat the problem of antisemitism on the same level as prejudices over race, sexuality or gender.

I personally started to detect a double standard over antisemitism in the 1980s, when I wrote that antisemitism had become “the prejudice that dare not speak its name”.

This was when the left was calling Israelis “Nazis” for trying to root out from Lebanon the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s terrorist infrastructure. It was when people started saying openly: “Jews make so much money / they’re so clannish / they always stick together against everyone else”.

Merely to mention the word “antisemitism” among left-wingers, though, caused an instant glacial chill, provoked eye-rolls or produced the charge: “You’re using antisemitism to sanitise Israel’s atrocities”.

It wasn’t until the issue so spectacularly blew up in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party that this last accusation was itself finally acknowledged as a form of Jew-hatred. And it was only then, because Corbyn was so left-wing he was deemed beyond the pale, that Jews began to feel it was safe to use the a-word.

So why does the left deny or marginalise the antisemitism amongst it? And why are many Jews still so nervous about provoking a bad reaction if they talk about this on the left other than in the context of the Corbynised Labour Party?

One obvious factor is that, in progressive circles, Marxist assumptions have been absorbed often without their provenance being recognised. Like Marx himself, many left-wingers believe capitalism is evil and white, that capitalism is run by Jews, that money is power and that Jews have so much money and power they run the capitalist world.
Michael Doran [WSJ]: In the Mideast, Biden Returns to Abnormal
Joe Biden implicitly campaigned on Warren G. Harding’s 1920 promise of “a return to normalcy.” But his administration is returning to Barack Obama’s abnormal Middle East strategy. A normal policy would respect the fundamental commandment of sound statecraft: Strengthen friends and punish enemies. It would distinguish between them by asking two simple questions: Which states have tended to shelter comfortably under the American power umbrella? And which have instead sought to destroy the American order? Israel, Turkey and the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, have functioned as pillars of the postwar American order. By contrast, for the past 40 years Iran has tirelessly opposed the American security system.

Three details of Iran’s strategic position could make it more dangerous in the near future. First, the Persian Gulf contains five of the world’s 10 largest proven oil reserves, and Iran threatens to dominate the region. Second, Tehran is increasingly allied with both Russia and China. Third, outreach to Iran by the U.S. has deeply angered most of America’s Middle Eastern allies.

A normal policy would seek to contain Iran. Every president since Jimmy Carter regarded Iran as a threat—except Mr. Obama. His flagship policy was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to which Mr. Biden is dedicated to return. The JCPOA won’t contain Iran. Its sunset clauses create a clear path for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. By lifting sanctions, it supplies the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with cash.

Mr. Obama also dispensed with traditional military deterrence. Tehran saw a green light to expand and arm its militia networks. By the time Mr. Obama left office, Tehran held substantial sway over four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Sana’a. Donald Trump returned to containment. While revitalizing deterrence and imposing sanctions, he also supported military and intelligence operations by allies, especially Israel, against Iran and its proxies. A new coalition of regional states developed and was formalized in the Abraham Accords.
JINSA PodCast: Vaccinating in Israel: A Genuine Success Story
Professor Eugene Kontorovich of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School joins host Erielle Davidson to discuss Israel’s COVID-19 vaccination program and what has made it so successful. Professor Kontorovich discusses the international treaties that govern Israel’s current vaccine distribution regime and corrects misinformation surrounding its vaccine program, including what international law says about Israel’s responsibilities and abilities to vaccinate Palestinians.

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column


Israelis are sometimes criticized for saying “yehiye b’seder” [it will be OK] without sufficiently considering the consequences. But there is such a thing as decision paralysis, when you can’t act because you never feel that you have enough information. Sometimes that’s worse than a less-than-perfect decision. I think the opponents of Israel’s application of civilian law to parts of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley are trying hard to induce decision paralysis.

Today (Wednesday) there is supposed to be a meeting in the White House at which Trump Administration officials reportedly will decide whether to green-light the move. Of course it will be a good thing if the US recognizes Israel’s action, especially if that means that it will issue an official statement that Jewish communities outside the Green Line are part of Israel.

But on the other hand, there is a feeling that the US is trying to micromanage Israel’s behavior. Perhaps, it is suggested, the “green light” will only include several communities near Jerusalem. Or maybe a phase-in that will take several months. Or maybe the US will require Benny Gantz’ explicit agreement. Or – who knows?

Gantz, incidentally, is remarkably unclear about his position, if he indeed has one. Here is how Noa Landau, a left-leaning journalist for Ha’aretz, describes it:

Not unilaterally, yes unilaterally. Only with the international community’s (unobtainable) consent, only with Jordan’s (unobtainable) consent. Only the Jordan Valley, only the settlement blocs. Only as part of the broader Trump plan, only a limited symbolic step. Only with a gesture to the Palestinians – but who needs the Palestinians anyway? Just don’t ask us to elaborate.

There is great pressure being applied from many quarters, both against PM Netanyahu and against Trump, to oppose this step, which is almost universally referred to as “annexation of [part of] the ‘West Bank’”. As Eugene Kontorovich argues [$], it is not “annexation” because the territory in question

…isn’t legally the territory of any other state, nor has it been since Israel’s independence in 1948. Neither the U.S. nor the European Union recognizes the existence of a Palestinian state, and Israel’s sovereign claim to the territory is superior to any other country’s. Putting this move in the same category as Russia’s seizure of Crimea is entirely misleading.


The Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) in the US is asking its members to lobby Congress against the plan, “out of a concern for Israel’s safety and security, for the preservation of Israel’s democratic character, and for the place of Israel among the nations of the world.” Its talking points come directly from the Israeli Left, which has been consistently defeated at the polls since the disasters wrought by the government of Ehud Barak in 2000. But don’t liberal American Jews know better than Israeli voters?

The Obama Gang has weighed in as well. Here’s Gangster Susan Rice: “So when it comes to annexation, I think the obvious argument against it is that it all but makes that objective of a two-state outcome impossible…”

What she means, of course, is that it makes impossible the Gang’s version of a two-state solution, in which Israel, including Jerusalem, is divided along the 1949 armistice lines. But that was always so, because it would render Israel indefensible, precisely the opposite of their contention. The Gang also envisioned the expulsion of tens of thousands of Jews from the territory in order to make a Jew-free Palestine possible, and Israel giving up control of Judaism’s holy places – which worked so well [not] under the Jordanians.

But a demilitarized Palestinian autonomy in less than all of the territory is far less dangerous. It does not require expelling Jews (or Arabs), and very few Palestinians are incorporated into Israel. That’s the Trump Administration version of the two-state solution.

Opponents of the move worry a great deal about the response of the Arab countries, especially Jordan, and the Europeans. I must note that if I have misgivings about the US micromanaging Israeli policy, I am even less likely to be influenced by the public pronouncements of Arab leaders who have been pumping anti-Israel venom into the veins of their subjects for decades, and now – when they depend on us for their security – are afraid that they will be overthrown if they don’t show sufficient enmity toward us. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states all know who will help them when they are in trouble, and who wants to hurt them.

The intersectional Left is fond of asking people to “check [their] privilege.” To the Europeans, I say “check your history,” you who practiced viciously exploitative colonialism for hundreds of years, who started world wars, and who either participated in the genocide of the European Jews, prevented their escape (Britain, I am looking at you), or turned a blind eye. It hasn’t been long enough to give any weight to your moral pronouncements.

Returning to President Trump, I think that moving this deal forward is of great importance to him, to show both his allies in the Middle East and his pro-Israel domestic supporters that he keeps his promises. The fact that his political enemies are mobilizing against him in force – particularly the Obama Gang – shows the importance of this issue. This gives Israel some leverage, which should be applied to keep the initiative from being watered down. We don’t have to agree on anything other than the map, and certainly not to a sovereign Palestinian state.
I think time is very short. The American election campaign will soon begin to absorb all the energies of the administration. Any gradual phase-in of sovereignty will not survive a change of administration, if it should occur. I am convinced that if Mr. Biden is elected, his administration will be dominated by the Obama Gang, which has proven itself an enemy of the Jewish state.
A Biden Administration could reverse an American position established by Trump – as Obama did with respect the Bush-Sharon letters – but it can’t undo Israeli decisions, which can and should be translated into facts on the ground.

It’s imperative that Israel move ahead and extend civilian law to communities in Judea and Samaria and to the Jordan Valley, in July as planned. If the map that will delineate the lines isn’t complete, it should be completed, unilaterally if necessary. I don’t see Trump objecting to unilateral action. Why should he? The details, essential to us, are unimportant to him.
There’s one week left in June. If not now, when?

Wednesday, April 24, 2019


 Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column



It’s become a truism that the hatred and harassment of individual Jews and Jewish communities that once was prevalent in the lands of the diaspora before the rebirth of a Jewish state has since morphed into loathing and persecution of that state. 

There are other parallels. Jewish communities in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East had a precarious existence, depending on the good will of the local prince or emir. If the ruler liked the Jews – or, probably more correctly – found them more useful than despicable, they could live their lives relatively undisturbed. If, on the other hand – well, you know the story.

Today the position of the Jewish state is also dependent on powerful people and entities far beyond Israel’s control. In particular, the State of Israel is strongly affected by the policies and actions of the US. In America, foreign policy, and especially practical actions and reactions to events in the international arena, are primarily in the hands of the president and his appointees. These days, the President of the United States is the “prince” whose attitude most affects whether Israel thrives or withers.

Israel could have tried harder to reduce her dependence on the US and her susceptibility to pressure from the American government. She should have. I would like to believe that the desirability of this is becoming evident to Israeli officials, but the pull of “free” military hardware is hard to ignore. And there is some truth in the idea that Israelis simply admire the US and value a close relationship with her.

In recent times, Khamenei has been playing Haman to the American president’s Ahasuerus. The Iranian playbook calls for Israel to be battered by simultaneous attacks from Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ rocket forces, and invaded by proxies from both the North and South. The regime is working on increasing the number, payloads, defensibility, and accuracy of the rockets in the hands of her proxies as well as in Iran herself. At the same time she is developing new proxies by establishing Iraqi Shiite militias in Syria, modeled on the Lebanese Hezbollah. All this is intended to be shielded under a nuclear umbrella, whose development is proceeding.

Taken by itself, it seems that war between Israel and Iran is guaranteed. But there is one other possibility – the only alternative that I can imagine, given the objectives of the Iranian regime. And that is that the regime can be toppled by internal opposition encouraged by economic pressure from the US.

It’s a longshot, because a regime that is demonstrably willing to shoot down anti-government protesters in the street, that is buttressed by paramilitary militias, and that terrorizes and murders opposition figures, is hard to overthrow. The regime is quite prepared to control the allocation of resources in such a way that the general population suffers bitterly as long it remains in power, so economic pressure needs to be tough and protracted. 

The alternative is a very destructive war for both Israel and Iran. If it comes to this, then I would hope that Israel will strike preemptively and hard. But that’s another discussion.

So now we can see the immediate effect of the attitude by the American president, the good or bad “prince” that holds the destiny of the Jewish community – in this case the State of Israel – in his hands. Barack Obama, following a nakedly anti-Israel script originally laid down in the 2006 Iraq Study Report (written in part by his close advisor Ben Rhodes), facilitated the Iranian plan. His administration negotiated a deal with the Iranians that removed economic sanctions, shielded the Iranian nuclear project, and even provided pallets of cash which went to support Iranian terrorist initiatives in Lebanon and Syria. At the same time, he punished Israeli PM Netanyahu whenever possible, kept up the pressure on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians that would weaken Israel’s ability to defend herself, and – along with officials like Secretary of State Kerry – directly contributed to the public demonization of the Jewish state.

President Trump, on the other hand, has been the Good Prince. He recognized Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, reduced subsidies to the Palestinians, and – it seems – will not try to force the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state as a dagger next to Israel’s heart. Most important, he has taken the US out of the Iran deal and re-imposed sanctions – the only possible road to a peaceful end to Iranian aggression.

I know I am not exaggerating when I say that President Trump is a controversial figure in the US. But he is not controversial in Israel, where almost everyone agrees that he has been the most pro-Israel president – in terms of actual actions, not just words – since Truman. And most Israelis would be happy to see him re-elected in 2020.

But that’s up to American voters to decide. And unfortunately, perhaps in part because Trump has been so pro-Israel, many of his opponents have moved in the opposite direction. Six of the most likely candidates to oppose Trump have said that if elected they would restore US participation in the nuclear deal – that is, they would remove the sanctions re-imposed by President Trump. The Democratic National Committee also passed a resolution calling for the US to return to the deal. The phony “pro-Israel” organization J Street has been lobbying candidates to speak out in favor of the deal and even more ominously, Obama’s shadowy National Security Action group, co-chaired by the ever-present Ben Rhodes, is pushing to restore the Obama Administration’s dangerous Iran policy.

This may be effective as anti-Trump or anti-Israel policy, but it is not in the American interest. The Iranian regime has threatened over and over to attack American assets or even to conduct terrorist attacks in the US herself. “Death to America” is not just a slogan, and the US is not referred to as “The Great Satan” out of desire for friendship. The policy of rapprochement pursued by the Obama Administration was pocketed and exploited by the regime, which did not waver from its objectives of total control of the Middle East and its resources, the establishment of a Shiite caliphate, and – its ultimate goal – replacing the US as the dominant world superpower.

If the Iran deal becomes an issue in the 2020 election, it will be bad for Israel, which does not want to be seen as “taking sides” in an American election. But Trump will likely cite Israel’s security as part of his reason for re-imposing sanctions, while his opponents will accuse “the Israel lobby” of undue influence on US policy. Anything that Israel does or says relating to Iran will be interpreted as improper intervention in the election.

And just like the unfortunate Jews in the Pale of Settlement and the Jewish neighborhoods of Alexandria or Baghdad, the Jewish state will find herself yet again unwillingly involved in and battered by the conflicts of princes.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Thursday, June 18, 2020

From Ian:

The dead horse of Palestine
George Orwell warned against ‘flyblown metaphors’ in his wonderful essay Politics and the English Language. Yet there are times when a political writer encounters sophistry so absurd that a descent into cliché constitutes the only adequate response.

Thus, the phrase ‘beating a dead horse’ leaps front of mind after reading a spate of newspaper editorials and opinion pieces bemoaning the evils of Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to extend Israeli sovereignty to additional regions of Judea-Samaria, aka the West Bank.

The defunct equine in question is the ‘two-state solution’ that has long been the centre-piece of diplomatic initiatives to end the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. And typical of this teeth-gnashing, garment-rending ‘woe is me’ style of editorialising was an op-ed by Australian academics Anas Iqtait and Tristan Dunning that ran in the Age on 23 May 2020.

In this article, Drs. Iqtait and Dunning expend almost 1,000 words arguing that a move by Israel to annex portions of the West Bank will be the death knell of any chance for a negotiated peace. Of course, how anyone still retains faith in the two-state solution after almost three decades of diplomatic failure recalls that famous Einstein definition of madness as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

The creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank will never happen for very good legal, strategic and moral reasons. To indulge in another Orwellian faux pas, the ship of dreams Two-State-Solution has not only sailed, but has long since sunk.

The legal argument against Palestinian statehood has particular salience as this is the centenary of the 1920 San Remo Convention, when the victorious WWI Allies decided the fate of the vanquished Ottoman Empire. By the terms of this agreement, Britain was awarded temporary governance over the land of Israel for the express purpose of establishing ‘a national home for the Jewish people’. This British Mandate encompassed pre-1967 Israel, the West Bank and the entirety of Jordan.
Israel Has Always Sought Peace with its Arab Neighbors
In 1936, the British government appointed a royal commission of inquiry headed by Lord Peel, which decided to carve this land into two sovereign nations. The Jews agreed in principle, while the Arab side refused again and again. In 1947 the Arab leadership refused the UN partition plan. Then in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Arabs in the land of Israel brought disaster down upon themselves. But things did not have to be that way.

In 1944 in a document titled "To our Arab neighbors," then-Etzel leader and future prime minister Menachem Begin portrayed a different possibility. He explained to the Arabs:

"We do not see you as an enemy. We want to see you as good neighbors. We did not come to destroy you or expel you from the lands you live on. The land of Israel has enough room for you, your sons and your grandsons and the millions of Jews that have no life but in this land. The Hebrew government will grant you full civil rights. Hebrew and Arabic will be the languages of the land. There will be no discrimination between Arabs and Jews for governmental or public work."

"The Muslim holy sites will be overseen by your representatives. The Hebrew government will grant education to all....No more will there be epidemics in our towns and villages. Work pay will be lifted to European standards. Agriculture will be developed. Houses will be built instead of tents. Water and electricity will reach every household. The Hebrew state will be a shared home for all, and peace and understanding will be between it and all independent Arab nations."

"If you want, and do not give your ears to agitators, peace and friendship between our two peoples can be eternal. Together we shall build this holy land. Together we shall gain from its fruits and treasures. Together we will develop its agriculture and industry. Together we will forward our sovereign peoples into a world of justice, freedom, wealth and dignity. To our Arab neighbors, we reach our hand out to you in peace and fraternity. Do not reject it!"

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

From Ian:

What Did Mike Pompeo Mean?
In his November statement, Pompeo noted that the settlements are not “per se” illegal; meaning that they are not in themselves intrinsically illegal. Last Wednesday, the Secretary of State said that the settlements were not “inherently” illegal; meaning in a permanent, immutable, or fundamental way. Kinda sounds like the same idea, different day.

Kontorovich further places great stock in the combined effect of Pompeo simultaneously “disavowing” any and all legal or other reasoning in the Hansell memo concluding that the settlements are, de facto (a third semantic variation to consider), illegal.

As I understand the combined effect, the language remains somewhat equivocal, leaving Pompeo some “wiggle room” for future negotiations, interpretations, whatevers. Per se/inherently a distinction without a difference.

Pompeo explicitly rejects the Hansell memo. But he stops short of an unequivocal declaration on the legality of all settlement activity by qualifying them as not being inherently illegal. Otherwise, why split hairs? Why not just omit “inherently”?

I know from direct experience that there are many Hansell-like memos and “opinions” yellowing in the off-site archives of numerous foreign services. Diplomatic thinking on the issue has been frozen for 40 years, reflecting a blind commitment to the falsehood of chronic Israeli breaches of the Geneva Convention. The fact that Israel defended its eastern border from an unprovoked attack by Jordan, and subsequently trounced the Kingdom’s forces, made the Six Day War a defensive war, which is treated very differently under international law. But that doesn’t fit the upside-down narrative that has captured the imaginations of generations of leaders and foreign policy influencers: that Israel is the aggressor and chief violator of international decency.

Pompeo should be commended for exposing the Hansell sham, but he has by no means slain the beast.

Lyn Julius: In Arab Countries, Restoring Synagogues Means Never Saying Sorry for Past Crimes
Last week, to much fanfare, the largest synagogue in the Middle East was reopened in Alexandria, Egypt. Some 300 guests, including Egyptian Antiquities and Tourism Minister Khaled al-Anany, were on hand for the festive occasion.

The event made headlines from the United Kingdom to China — but only The Jerusalem Post pointed out that just three Jews were in attendance.

According to reports, only a handful of Jews now live in a country which once boasted 80,000–100,000. (Israeli diplomats and Egyptian-born Jews living outside the country are planning their own celebration next month, but these visitors will be returning to their homes in Israel, Europe, and the United States after the party.)

The Eliyahu HaNavi synagogue will never again host Jewish weddings or bar mitzvahs, nor will it ever muster a minyan. It will be no more than a museum to an extinct community, and a perfunctory tourist stop.

The media coverage of the event was typical of a trend hailing the restoration of Jewish buildings in countries with no more than a handful of Jews as somehow indicative of pluralism and tolerance in the Arab world. Even Jews fall for the fantasy, grateful for the slightest acknowledgement that members of the Tribe once lived in these countries.

“I’m very proud of what my country has done, and it symbolizes living together — today there is no difference between Egyptian Muslim, Christian, and Egyptian Jew,” gushed Magda Haroun, leader of the Cairo “community” of two Jews. “It is recognition that we have always been here and that we have contributed to a lot of things, just like any other Egyptians.”

No journalist covering the restoration story bothered to ask why a once-glorious community has been reduced to a handful of souls in Cairo and Alexandria, the youngest of whom (Magda herself) is reportedly 67.
Israeli model says Lebanese designer banned her from show
Arbel Kynan, a top Israeli fashion model, wrote in an Instagram post on Tuesday that a Lebanese designer refused to have her take part in his runway show at the Haute Couture Week in Paris, which starts on January 20, because of her nationality.

“Truthfully... it’s still hard for me to digest....” Kynan wrote. She then told of how she arrived in Paris a few days ago to be photographed by a “very respectable fashion company,” and was told she would also walk the runway in next week’s show, which is a coveted job in the modeling industry.

“Many times, people ask us where we are from, and on the day of the shoot they asked me where I am from and, of course, I answered with a big smile that I am from Tel Aviv.” The shoot continued as usual, Kynan said, and they finished early. According to Kynan, a few days passed, and then on Tuesday, she says, “I received an email from my agency stating that the client is Lebanese and he does not want me to take part in the show, because I live in Tel Aviv, Israel – this is the content of the email I received.”

Thursday, November 12, 2020

From Ian:

Arabs states draw closer to Israel to counter non-Arab powers Turkey and Iran
The decision by three Arab states to make peace with Israel can be credited both to efforts by the Trump administration and the recognition by these Sunni states that their security would improve against the ongoing threats they face from Turkey and Iran.

Iran and its proxies interfere with Arab states while promoting their Shi’ite revolutionary ideology; likewise, Turkey pushes its Sunni revolutionary ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region.

Turkey and Iran look to overthrow the Sunni Arab states that do not align with them, such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. The normalization deals between the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan have greatly upset Turkey and Iran, which ideologically view Israel as the enemy.

“Iran is a tactical enemy for the Gulf states because the regime is controlled by Shi’ite fanatics who want to destroy the Sunni regimes in the Gulf,” Harold Rhode, a longtime former adviser on Islamic affairs in the U.S. Defense Department of Defense who was in Iran during the early months of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, told JNS.

Israel’s burgeoning alliance with the Gulf Arab states reverses the situation the Jewish state had found itself in during the first few decades of its existence. In its early years during the successive Arab-Israeli conflicts, it relied on an alliance of non-Arab states, such as Turkey and Iran, as its only regional allies. However, this all began to change when the pro-Western Shah of Iran was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and has increased under the Islamist anti-Israeli policies of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan.

Rhode predicts that if the Iranian people successfully toppled the current regime, it would most likely be transformed into a country focused on rebuilding and re-establishing its connections with the world.


JCPA: Arab Normalization and Palestinian Radicalization: The Tug of War over the Middle East Peace Process
The Palestinian leadership has denounced the Abraham Accords signed by its longtime Arab allies and financial donors; they are now pivoting toward the radical, terror-sponsoring Iranian and Turkish regimes. Palestinians in eastern Jerusalem burned UAE flags and pictures of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed.

The Palestinian Authority’s Mufti of Jerusalem even issued a fatwa banning the citizens of Sudan, the UAE, Bahrain, or any Arab country that may normalize relations with Israel from praying at the Al‑Aqsa Mosque in the future.

Turkish President ErdoÄŸan’s hosting of Fatah, Hamas, and other Palestinian factions has ratcheted up longtime tensions with Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states. Istanbul has also served as a headquarters for Hamas leaders to mobilize West Bank terror cells and carry out cyberwarfare and counter-intelligence operations against Israel.

The Arab powers have grown tired of Palestinian intransigence, corruption, and rejectionism. Saudi Arabia has criticized the Palestinian rejection of Israeli peace offers and the Palestinian boycott of any cooperation with Israel.

The Palestinian leadership should honor the Abraham Accords’ call for unconditional mutual recognition and normalization of relations with Israel as the keys to opening a viable political and diplomatic agreement that can provide enormous benefits to the Palestinian people.

A Palestinian realignment with peaceful Arab states will enable the PA to sit at the negotiating table with its Israeli neighbor without pre-conditions, accepting the Abraham Accords’ principle of normalization, mutual acceptance, and goodwill in order to maximize the prospects for a successfully negotiated compromise.
Message to US President-elect Biden: On Israel and the region, first, do no harm
The US under Obama clashed heavily and relentlessly with Israel under Netanyahu in two central areas — the Palestinian conflict and Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

On the Palestinians, the administration criticized any and all Israeli building over the Green Line, including in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem such as Ramat Shlomo, rather than focusing on preventing the expansion of settlements in West Bank areas Israel would ultimately need to relinquish in order to separate from the Palestinians and maintain a Jewish, democratic state.

More significantly still, Obama and his (second) secretary of state John Kerry insistently underestimated the devastating impact on Israel, physically and psychologically, of the Second Intifada — the strategic onslaught of suicide bombings that killed 1,000 Israelis and were launched from the major West Bank cities that Israel had relinquished under the Oslo process.

Everybody recalls Netanyahu going to the US Congress in 2015 to lobby against Obama’s Iran deal; most people have forgotten Obama coming to Jerusalem’s International Conference Center (Binyanei Ha’Uma) in 2013 to lobby against Netanyahu’s ultra-skeptical approach to negotiating with the Palestinians: “Peace is possible,” the US president assured a carefully chosen audience of young Israelis. “I know it doesn’t seem that way. There will always be a reason to avoid risk, and there’s a cost for failure. There will always be extremists who provide an excuse to not act. And there is something exhausting about endless talks about talks; the daily controversies, and grinding status quo.”

On Iran, meanwhile, Obama and Kerry wanted to believe that the promise of international rehabilitation, rejoining the family of nations, would help deter the Islamist regime from pursuing the bomb. They thus negotiated and approved an agreement, many of whose core provisions apply for a limited period only, that neither fully dismantled nor even completely froze the Iranian program. The ayatollahs were allowed to improve their uranium enrichment process and refine their missile delivery systems within the terms of the 2015 deal, which they were also handsomely financially rewarded for signing.

Rapacious ideologically and territorially, the Islamists in Tehran are playing the long game. They don’t want to rejoin the family of nations. They want to sit at the head of the table, set the agenda, and bend the rest of the world to their will. This harsh truth seemed lost on the Obama presidency.
The Palestinian Leadership Keeps Standing in the Way of Peace with Israel
A Washington Post front-page article on Nov. 1 noted a "promised peace" between Israelis and Palestinians "seems further away than ever." But it's not that peace is elusive.

Palestinian leaders have rejected numerous offers for Palestinian statehood in exchange for peace with the Jewish state. They refused U.S. and Israeli proposals for statehood in 2000 at Camp David, 2001 at Taba and 2008 after the Annapolis Conference.

The 2008 offer included 93.7% of the West Bank, with land swaps for the remainder, a capital in eastern Jerusalem and a state. Palestinians rejected Obama administration efforts to restart negotiations in 2014 and 2016.

Instead, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has incited anti-Jewish violence and refused to quit paying salaries to imprisoned Palestinian terrorists and their families. This is a violation of the Oslo accords that created the Palestinian Authority more than a quarter of a century ago.

Palestinian leadership could have chosen the path of peace, as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have recently done. They've chosen otherwise.

Wednesday, February 17, 2021


Biden has yet to phone Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though it has been a full 4 weeks since Biden assumed office as president of the United States. The more time goes by, the more speculation by the media on what, exactly, the lack of a phone call to the Israeli premier signifies, or whether it means anything at all. Is the lack of a phone call a snub, a slight? Or is Biden holding back until the results of the upcoming Israeli election are clear?

My host for this column, Elder of Ziyon, is on record as saying the no phone call to Israel is no big deal:
Some think that the symbolism of Biden not calling Netanyahu is important. I don't. Unless he calls Abbas first, this is not something to waste time on.
It’s true, as far as we know, that Biden has not yet called Mahmoud Abbas. Biden did, however, have Deputy Assistant Secretary for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs Hady Amr reach out to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh. So claimed Shtayyeh during an interview on France 24 Arabic TV on February 7, 2021, that was documented by MEMRI TV:

Interviewer: "Have you opened a channel of communication with the new Biden administration?"

Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh: "Yes, there has been a phone call between myself and Mr. Hady Amr – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Israeli and Palestinian affairs. Mr. Amr reaffirmed what this administration declared during the election campaign: It will restore the aid, it will reopen the PLO office in Washington, and it will open a U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem. This is an important political message. In addition, the administration intends to restore aid to UNRWA and aid to the Palestinian people. These issues, as far as we are concerned, fall under the definition of confidence-building measures between this administration and us.”

[...]

"We requested that this administration reverse all the decisions that were made by the Trump administration, including the decision [to move the] U.S. embassy [to Jerusalem]. However, we know that the new administration, might not go this way, and instead choose an alternative option, which is opening a U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem in order to deal with the Palestinians directly. I believe that it sends a [clear] political message."

How important is this exchange? It’s hard to gauge, because first of all, it’s anecdotal. We weren’t there, and we don’t know if Shtayyeh’s account is faithful to the truth. But we do need to acknowledge that while Biden hasn’t spoken to Netanyahu, there have been contacts between the Biden administration and Israel. Haaretz, in fact, said that the first official contact between the two administrations took place on January 23, when U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan spoke with Israeli counterpart, Meir Ben-Shabbat.

The exchange with Ben-Shabbat, oddly enough, took place on a Saturday, when Israeli officials generally refrain from official business out of respect for the Jewish Sabbath, “Shabbat.” This phone call, like the lack of a phone call from Biden to Netanyahu, could, in theory, be seen as a slight by the Biden administration to Israel. Having his guy call Bibi’s guy on Shabbos? It’s certainly an affront to Israeli sensibilities.*

But I may be reading too much into this—it is likely that there are meetings and phone calls with Israeli officials on Shabbat all the time, they just aren’t advertised for fear of public backlash. As a result, when such meetings or phone calls take place on a Saturday, they tend to fall below the radar, and go unmentioned by the media. In this case, it may very well be that Israel wanted the media to put out the word that the phone call, in fact, took place, in order to take the sting out of the fact that Biden has yet to call Bibi.

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, notes that Biden is the first president in 40 years to delay contact with an Israeli prime minister on taking office:

He called Xi. He called Putin. But three weeks into his presidency, Old Joe has pointedly refrained from calling the head of the government of our most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And so it’s clear now: Biden’s handlers intend to put immense strain on the U.S.-Israel alliance over the next four years, at a time when Israel and the rest of the free world are threatened by Iranian mullahs who are newly emboldened amid all the signs that Biden’s handlers plan to readopt Obama’s appeasement policies toward them.

Of the phone call between Hady Amr and Mohammad Shtayyeh, Spencer says:

The import of that call was as clear as the import of the snub of Netanyahu: the money will flow again, the jihad will be enabled again, the Israelis will be treated with contempt again, the peace accords that Trump enabled will be put on the back burner, if not repudiated outright. Everything is back on track now after a four-year speed bump.
The Washington Free Beacon, meanwhile, describes the lack of a phone call from President Biden to Prime Minister Netanyahu as a “diplomatic slight” and says that “congressional Republicans are piling on the White House for not speaking with Netanyahu, with multiple members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee telling the Free Beacon it is a slight that endangers the close U.S.-Israel alliance at a time when the world’s only Jewish state is facing down multiple terrorist threats.”

The Free Beacon lists a number of prominent Republicans who have spoken out against the slight:

· Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas), the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee

· Rep. Lee Zeldin (N.Y.), a top HFAC Republican

· Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee

· Rep. Ronny Jackson (R., Texas), another member of HFAC member

· Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), who sits on both the HFAC and the House Judiciary Committee

· Rep. Mark Green (R., Tenn.)

· Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R., Fla.), also on the HFAC

· Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.), ranking member of the House's Middle East Subcommittee

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon also spoke out against Biden’s snub in this tweet of February 10th, tacking on Netanyahu’s phone number at the end for a bit of snarky emphasis:

In an earlier piece, the Free Beacon enumerated the history of US presidents contacting Israeli leaders over the past four decades:

Upon assuming office in January 1981, Reagan made overtures to Israel, vowing to protect its interests, and sent Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to meet with Israel’s leaders to build "Israeli confidence in the administration of President-elect Ronald Reagan," according to an Associated Press report from the time.

President George H.W. Bush followed this trend. He called then-Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir on Jan. 25, 1989, five days after he entered the White House.

President Bill Clinton reached out to Israel even sooner. He called then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin on Jan. 23, 1993, three days after being sworn in.

President George W. Bush phoned former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak on Jan. 27, 2001, a week after taking the White House, to express his support for the U.S.-Israel alliance.

President Barack Obama, who faced criticism from Republicans for policies they branded anti-Israel, called the Jewish state’s leaders on his first day in office. Obama also called Palestinian leaders that day, laying the groundwork for that administration’s failed bid to foster peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

President Donald Trump not only called Netanyahu but made the historic decision to invite him to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 22, 2017, two days after he took the oath of office.
From Biden, however? Crickets. Of more concern to some, however, is the inability of White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s inability to confirm Israel as a US ally. Elder of Ziyon covered this story in White House press secretary cannot say that Israel is a US ally. This is very bad. Here too, Elder once again opines that the failure of Biden to call Bibi is no big deal. He does, however, see the failure of the White House press secretary to clearly state that Israel is a close US ally as an ominous and significant harbinger of doom:

I don't think that it is a big deal that Biden hasn't called Netanyahu, but the inability to say that Israel is an ally is mind-boggling. Even if she didn't want to answer the same question about Saudi Arabia so she avoided answering about Israel, it is a big deal, because this points to Biden as being the third term of Obama, and the idea that the White House believes that a tilt towards Iran and away from US allies is a good idea is a very bad harbinger for the next four years.

Note also that even President Obama had no problem saying that the US was a strong ally of Israel.

Perhaps, as Elder suggests, the absence of a phone call, in and of itself, is not very important. Or maybe that was true, up to a point. Now, however, it points to a deliberate diss, as time goes by—an entire month in which a certain phone in Israel just doesn’t ring.

People are talking about it, leaders are speaking out, calling the lack of a phone call from Biden to Bibi an insult. It means something that the phone call hasn’t happened. The delay is a statement of malignant intent.

Taking a step back and looking at the big picture only makes things look worse. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican, is stripped from her committee roles as a result of airing her despicable conspiracy theories among them some that are antisemitic. Far left antisemite Ilhan Omar, on the other hand, is elevated in status, having been appointed vice chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights.

Should someone like Ilhan Omar have a say on foreign affairs? Someone who applauds Biden for stripping the Houthis of their designation as a terrorist organization?
Someone who tweets: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and let them see the evil doings of Israel.” Someone who publicly expresses hunger for the ICC to prosecute American ally Israel for imaginary war crimes?
But then again, Jen Psaki can’t say that Israel is a US ally. And that is the new reality: Israel, apparently, is no longer America's greatest ally in the Middle East. Which just goes to show that with Jobama in office, you can lead Netanyahu to wait and wait by the phone, but you can’t make it ring.

 *On reviewing this piece, Elder pointed out the time difference between Israel and the US. It would have been Shabbos in Israel only if Sullivan called Ben-Shabbat before 11 am EST. 

UPDATE: Biden finally called Netanyahu just as this piece was coming out. But the point was made. It took Biden an entire month to call, as the whole world was watching, and talking. We got the message: this will not be an Israel-friendly administration.




Monday, May 06, 2019

From Ian:

As ceasefire goes into effect, PM says Gaza campaign not over
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday commented on reports of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire deal in Gaza, after two days of fighting in which four Israelis were killed, saying that Israel was readying for further confrontations with terrorist groups in the coastal enclave.

“Over the past two days, we have hit Hamas and Islamic Jihad with great force, attacking over 350 targets and terrorist leaders and activists, and destroying terrorist infrastructure,” Netanyahu said in a statement.

“The campaign is not over and requires patience and judgment. We are preparing to continue,” the prime minister added. “The goal was and remains to ensure the peace and security of the residents of the south. I send condolences to the families and wish a speedy recovery for the wounded.”

A spokesperson for Hamas similarly said, in response to the prime minister’s statement, that although the recent flareup in violence had come to an end, the wider conflict would continue.

“The resistance managed to deter the IDF,” said Sami Abu Zuhri, according to the Kan public broadcaster, referring to the Gaza terror groups. “Our message is that this round is over, but the conflict will not end until we regain our rights.”

The ceasefire between Israel and the Gaza terror groups went into effect at 4:30 a.m. Monday, according to the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups, ending two days of intense fighting that saw more than 600 rockets fired at Israel and four Israeli civilians killed.

Over two days, in response to the rocket fire, the Israeli military conducted hundreds of strikes from the air and land, including one highly unusual targeted killing of a terrorist operative who the IDF said funneled money from Iran to terror groups in the Strip.

Palestinian medical officials reported 29 dead since Friday, including at least 11 terrorists, The Times of Israel confirmed.
Khaled Abu Toameh: Hamas, Islamic Jihad again celebrate ‘victory’ - analysis
Hamas and Islamic Jihad officials see the ceasefire agreement that was reached with Israel early Monday as a “big achievement.”

In their view, the last round of fighting, during which the two groups fired hundreds of missiles towards Israel, has “deterred” Israel and forced it to commit to the implementation of previous Egyptian-sponsored understandings, which include easing restrictions imposed on the Hamas-ruled coastal enclave.

According to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, this time they received assurances from Egypt, Qatar and the United Nations that Israel will fulfill its obligations under the previous understandings reached earlier this year.

The two groups claimed that Monday’s ceasefire agreement requires Israel to stop shooting at Palestinians during the weekly protests near the border with Israel, also known as the Great March of Return; the implementation of the previous understandings, especially with regards to easing the blockade on the Gaza Strip; allowing international relief organizations to assist families whose houses were destroyed in the last round of fighting; an end to Israeli targeted assassinations and expanding the fishing zone for Palestinian fishermen.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad feel that the price they paid for launching hundreds of missiles toward Israel during the two days of fighting was relatively small compared to the losses and damage inflicted on Israel.

As far as they are concerned, the fact that none of their senior leaders was killed is sufficient to celebrate victory. Also, the fact that Israel did not launch a ground offensive in the Gaza Strip is seen by the two groups as proof that Israel is afraid of an all-out war with the Gaza-based groups. Each round of fighting that ends with Hamas and Islamic Jihad remaining the two dominant forces in the Gaza Strip is also seen by the two groups as a type of victory.

“The Palestinian resistance groups succeeded in deterring Israel and forcing it to implement the Egyptian-brokered understandings,” said Musab al-Braim, a spokesman for Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian groups, he said, are now expecting Israel to step up the pace of implementing the understandings, especially in light of the “assurances” reportedly provided by Egypt, Qatar and the UN.



Amb Danon on CNN: When Hamas is exterminated, the people in Gaza will celebrate


Wednesday, December 02, 2020

From Ian:

Knesset advances motion to disband, moving toward 4th elections in 2 years
The Knesset on Wednesday passed a bill to dissolve, setting the stage for the fourth round of national elections in two years as Defense Minister Benny Gantz and his Blue and White party broke from the coalition and voted in favor of the measure.

The bill passed with 61 MKs voting in favor and 54 against.

Gantz’s support for the opposition bill will likely spell the end of his ill-fated power-sharing partnership with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, some six months after agreeing to join a unity government in order to deal with the coronavirus crisis.

The measure must still go through committee and pass three more readings in the Knesset before new elections are called, likely for sometime in the spring or summer.

“The dissolution of the Knesset is not a victory, it’s the first step toward a different government, which will deal with the coronavirus and the economy and won’t cause Israelis to hate each other,” Opposition Leader Yair Lapid, who proposed the measure, tweeted after the bill was passed.

Coalition whip Miki Zohar, a Likud party ally of Netanyahu’s, accused Blue and White and the opposition of again “dragging” Israelis to the ballot box.

“The only thing in common between the factions that make up the opposition and Blue and White is their ambition to harm Netanyahu’s tenure,” he wrote on Twitter. “This is a sad moment for the Israeli people.”

Gantz on Tuesday night announced he would support the measure, accusing Netanyahu of committing an “economic terror attack” by refusing to allow the 2020 and 2021 budgets to move forward.

If the Knesset dissolution bill isn’t ultimately approved, the government has until December 23 to pass a 2020 budget or the government will fall and elections will automatically be scheduled for March 23, 2021.


Israel Aims To Make Iran's Nuclear Program a Risky Venture
Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, was even more explicit. In a 2018 interview with Israeli television channel Kan, the former premier suggested that the Iranian scientist represented a target of opportunity for Israel's clandestine service. "I know Fakhrizadeh well. He doesn't know how well I know him. If I met him in the streets, most likely I would recognize him," Olmert remarked. "He does not have immunity, he did not have immunity and I don't think he will have immunity." Israel now appears to have made good on Olmert's warning.

Yet Friday's killing has another facet, as well: It reflects what amounts to a significant shift in strategy on the part of the Jewish state. For years, speculation has abounded that Israel might ultimately decide to act unilaterally against Iran's nuclear program, which represents the gravest external threat to its security. The possibility of an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear sites is still very much on the table today, but it is an option hamstrung by a harsh reality: It is simply not possible to bomb knowledge.

Over the past two decades, Iran has amassed a formidable cadre of experts, scientists and engineers to power its atomic effort. In turn, the Iranian regime has taken great comfort in the idea that these specialists, spread over the length and breadth of its national nuclear endeavor, provide a guarantee of sorts that any military strike would turn out to be, at best, a temporary setback to the regime's path to the bomb.

Changing that calculus has naturally become a growing priority for Jerusalem. Over the past decade, no fewer than five high-level Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in a variety of very public ways. The assassination of Fakhrizadeh is just the latest part of this pattern.

Whether this campaign has any lasting effect on Iran's nuclear trajectory remains to be seen. The larger message it is trying to convey, however, is crystal clear. Israel is putting Iran's nuclear scientists on notice that their chosen vocation could turn out to be downright hazardous to their health, and that they would be prudent to seek other employment.
Khaled Abu Toameh: Arabs Warn Biden: Do Not Embolden Hezbollah
The message they [nationals of Lebanon] are sending to a new US administration is: The Lebanese people are hoping that you will help them get rid of Hezbollah. Cozying up to Iran would further embolden Hezbollah and allow it to destroy Lebanon by turning it into an Iranian-controlled colony.

"The Lebanese people... are being held hostage today by a militia that is financed by Iran, whose weapons are coming from Iran, and even whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is stating clearly and publicly that he takes orders from Iran." — Samy Gemayel, leader of the Christian Kataeb Party, November 23, 2020.

"Hezbollah is the only party in Lebanon that has 20,000 soldiers on the ground.... it can do a lot to make our democracy totally fictive. Today, we are being treated as hostages, and therefore the international community must help us." — Samy Gemayel.

Rabi's expressed hope that Biden would refuse to follow the policies of former President Barack Obama toward Iran. "This mistake needs to be corrected," Rabi wrote, referring to Obama's policy of appeasement toward Iran. "Correcting it can only be done by adopting a policy different from the Obama policy."

The Lebanese and Arab warnings about a possible return to the nuclear deal with Iran and the resulting empowerment of Hezbollah need to be taken seriously by the new US administration. The Lebanese and Arabs are trying to tell Biden what they and the Trump administration have known for the past few years, namely, that Iran and its proxies -- such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis -- are poised to wreak havoc in the Middle East.

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Follow by Email

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 14 years and 30,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Categories

#PayForSlay Abbas liar Academic fraud administrivia al-Qaeda algeria Alice Walker American Jews AmericanZionism Amnesty analysis anti-semitism anti-Zionism antisemitism apartheid Arab antisemitism arab refugees Arafat archaeology Ari Fuld art Ashrawi ASHREI B'tselem bahrain Balfour bbc BDS BDSFail Bedouin Beitunia beoz Bernie Sanders Biden history Birthright book review Brant Rosen breaking the silence Campus antisemitism Cardozo cartoon of the day Chakindas Chanukah Christians circumcision Clark Kent coexistence Community Standards conspiracy theories COVID-19 Cyprus Daled Amos Daphne Anson David Applebaum Davis report DCI-P Divest This double standards Egypt Elder gets results ElderToons Electronic Intifada Embassy EoZ Trump symposium eoz-symposium EoZNews eoztv Erekat Erekat lung transplant EU Euro-Mid Observer European antisemitism Facebook Facebook jail Fake Civilians 2014 Fake Civilians 2019 Farrakhan Fatah featured Features fisking flotilla Forest Rain Forward free gaza freedom of press palestinian style future martyr Gary Spedding gaza Gaza Platform George Galloway George Soros German Jewry Ghassan Daghlas gideon levy gilad shalit gisha Goldstone Report Good news Grapel Guardian guest post gunness Haaretz Hadassah hamas Hamas war crimes Hananya Naftali hasbara Hasby 2014 Hasby 2016 Hasby 2018 hate speech Hebron helen thomas hezbollah history Hizballah Holocaust Holocaust denial honor killing HRW Human Rights Humanitarian crisis humor huor Hypocrisy ICRC IDF IfNotNow Ilan Pappe Ilhan Omar impossible peace incitement indigenous Indonesia international law interview intransigence iran Iraq Islamic Judeophobia Islamism Israel Loves America Israeli culture Israeli high-tech J Street jabalya James Zogby jeremy bowen Jerusalem jewish fiction Jewish Voice for Peace jihad jimmy carter Joe Biden John Kerry jokes jonathan cook Jordan Joseph Massad Juan Cole Judaism Judea-Samaria Judean Rose Judith Butler Kairos Karl Vick Keith Ellison ken roth khalid amayreh Khaybar Know How to Answer Lebanon leftists Linda Sarsour Linkdump lumish mahmoud zahar Mairav Zonszein Malaysia Marc Lamont Hill Marjorie Taylor Greene max blumenthal Mazen Adi McGraw-Hill media bias Methodist Michael Lynk Michael Ross Miftah Missionaries moderate Islam Mohammed Assaf Mondoweiss moonbats Morocco Mudar Zahran music Muslim Brotherhood Naftali Bennett Nakba Nan Greer Nation of Islam Natural gas Nazi Netanyahu News nftp NGO Nick Cannon NIF Noah Phillips norpac NSU Matrix NYT Occupation offbeat olive oil Omar Barghouti Only in Israel Opinion Opinon oxfam PA corruption PalArab lies Palestine Papers pallywood pchr PCUSA Peace Now Peter Beinart Petra MB philosophy poetry Poland poll Poster Preoccupied Prisoners propaganda Proud to be Zionist Puar Purim purimshpiel Putin Qaradawi Qassam calendar Quora Rafah Ray Hanania real liberals RealJerusalemStreets reference Reuters Richard Falk Richard Landes Richard Silverstein Right of return Rivkah Lambert Adler Robert Werdine rogel alpher roger cohen roger waters Rutgers Saeb Erekat Sarah Schulman Saudi Arabia saudi vice self-death self-death palestinians Seth Rogen settlements sex crimes SFSU shechita sheikh tamimi Shelly Yachimovich Shujaiyeh Simchat Torah Simona Sharoni SodaStream South Africa Sovereignty Speech stamps Superman Syria Tarabin Temple Mount Terrorism This is Zionism Thomas Friedman TOI Tomer Ilan Trump Trump Lame Duck Test Tunisia Turkey UAE Accord UCI UK UN UNDP unesco unhrc UNICEF United Arab Emirates Unity unrwa UNRWA hate unrwa reports UNRWA-USA unwra Varda Vic Rosenthal Washington wikileaks work accident X-washing Y. Ben-David Yemen YMikarov zahran Ziesel zionist attack zoo Zionophobia Ziophobia Zvi

Blog Archive